brechthian theories
...em onstage, the audience might not attack the problem in the streets.” (Greenwald, et. al, 1097) Brecht’s idea to allow audiences to view issues in their own society was an breath of fresh air for 20th century audiences to be given to opportunity to allow the theatre to educate and inspire them rather than to simply entertain. However, by his refusal to evoke an emotional response in his audiences, Brecht neglects to allow audiences to identify on a more emotional level with characters, therefore discouraging any passionate responses from audience members to initiate social change. Brecht’s development of epic theatre varied vastly from the traditional dramatic theatre; dramatic theatre is plot driven whereas as epic is a narrative. Dramatic theatre implicates the spectator in the action where epic theatre aims to turn the spectator into an observer. Dramatic theatre provides the spectator with sensations and experiences, Brecht’s epic theatre forces the observer to make decisions and gives him a picture of the world. Essentially, the spectator in dramatic theatre stands in the thick of human emotion and feels what the character is feeling while the epic observer is given the opportunity to stand back and studies and surveys from an outside perspective. The idea that Brecht creates this theatre to give audience members the chance to view their society from an outside perspective is theoretically sound. The chance to watch without emotional connection, without the personal experiences that force all of us to be biased, in order to enable us to action is ideal. However, what Brecht fails to realize is that human interaction is what makes theatre. The identification audience members feel with characters is what gives them a model for their emotions and experiences and what ultimately inspires change. Brecht’s critique of the Aristotelian catharsis is erroneous because he does not factor in human identification. The reason why theatre has been effective as an instrument of political and social change as well as an sustained form of entertainment is the efficacy of interacting with human emotions. Theatre, since the classics has relied on the emotional contact between audience and actors. It’s why audiences identify with and understand Medea, despite the fact that logically we should despise and hate her as she ultimately murders both of her own children. However, Euripedes uses Jason’s oppressive behavior to appeal to the audience's sense of fairness in humanity. Through his presentation of Medea’s oppression we ultimately can justify and understand on a more identifiable and humane level why her final actions must be so drastic. Without the emotion of the characters appealing to the emotion of the audience, Medea’s actions never would have been justified. Brecht’s attempt at avoiding emotional connection is an attempt to deny that human nature in itself is an emotional issue. Logic and rational might give people something to think about, something to contemplate, ...